And in other news, this is the quietest July 4th I have seen in 19 years of living in this neighborhood. Little hooligans should be blowing things up all over the place. I probably haven't heard three firecrackers all week.

And in other news, this is the quietest July 4th I have seen in 19 years of living in this neighborhood. Little hooligans should be blowing things up all over the place. I probably haven't heard three firecrackers all week.

Don't know about your neck of the woods, but around here the fire marshals are cracking down hard on fireworks due to the severe drought we've had this year. This whole area is like a tinderbox. I expect a mostly peaceful holiday, which is a refreshing change.

And in other news, this is the quietest July 4th I have seen in 19 years of living in this neighborhood. Little hooligans should be blowing things up all over the place. I probably haven't heard three firecrackers all week.

Don't know about your neck of the woods, but around here the fire marshals are cracking down hard on fireworks due to the severe drought we've had this year. This whole area is like a tinderbox. I expect a mostly peaceful holiday, which is a refreshing change.

And in other news, this is the quietest July 4th I have seen in 19 years of living in this neighborhood. Little hooligans should be blowing things up all over the place. I probably haven't heard three firecrackers all week.

Don't know about your neck of the woods, but around here the fire marshals are cracking down hard on fireworks due to the severe drought we've had this year. This whole area is like a tinderbox. I expect a mostly peaceful holiday, which is a refreshing change.

All fireworks are illegal here, but they're plentiful thanks to nearby, tax-free NH. Our damp summer has brought no fire risk or extraordinary enforcement. I think patriotism is dead, and George Bush killed it.

(Actually, it's probably high prices and a paucity of local teenagers).

They are legal, and there are tons of places to buy them. The main reason I enjoy them (and this is going to sound cheesy) is because when you go out your front door at about 9 pm on the 4th.... you can close your eyes and hear literally thousands of distant thuds, booms, pops, etc..... and for just a moment you can imagine that it must have sounded something like that to people listening to battles a couple miles away from where the Colonials and the Redcoats were clashing a couple centuries ago.

The nation's psyche is battered and bruised, the sense of pessimism palpable. Young or old, Republican or Democrat, economically stable or struggling, Americans are questioning where they are and where they are going. And they wonder who or what might ride to their rescue.

These are more than mere gripes, but rather an expression of fears - concerns reflected not only in the many recent polls that show consumer confidence plummeting, personal happiness waning and more folks worrying that the country is headed in the wrong direction, but also in conversations happening all across the land.

The nation's psyche is battered and bruised, the sense of pessimism palpable. Young or old, Republican or Democrat, economically stable or struggling, Americans are questioning where they are and where they are going. And they wonder who or what might ride to their rescue.

These are more than mere gripes, but rather an expression of fears - concerns reflected not only in the many recent polls that show consumer confidence plummeting, personal happiness waning and more folks worrying that the country is headed in the wrong direction, but also in conversations happening all across the land.

Damn Obama for being so far left. I adore his patriotic and hopeful speeches. He is Reagan in that respect --

But there is no way I can vote for him based on his ideological foundation and the risk of the type of justices he'd put on the Supreme Court. You know... like the 4 that very nearly ended our 2nd Amendment protections.

The nation's psyche is battered and bruised, the sense of pessimism palpable. Young or old, Republican or Democrat, economically stable or struggling, Americans are questioning where they are and where they are going. And they wonder who or what might ride to their rescue.

These are more than mere gripes, but rather an expression of fears - concerns reflected not only in the many recent polls that show consumer confidence plummeting, personal happiness waning and more folks worrying that the country is headed in the wrong direction, but also in conversations happening all across the land.

Damn Obama for being so far left. I adore his patriotic and hopeful speeches. He is Reagan in that respect --

But there is no way I can vote for him based on his ideological foundation and the risk of the type of justices he'd put on the Supreme Court. You know... like the 4 that very nearly ended our 2nd Amendment protections.

Which conservative justices are you worried he'll be replacing? The oldest justices and the ones most likely to be replaced in the next four years are Stevens and Ginsburg, with the rest being 72 or younger. Stevens and Ginsburg are both considered on the liberal side of the court. Barring something unexpected, the next president won't be shifting the balance of the court.

Logged

Roger: And you should know, I have no genitals.Syndey: That's alright. I have both.

The nation's psyche is battered and bruised, the sense of pessimism palpable. Young or old, Republican or Democrat, economically stable or struggling, Americans are questioning where they are and where they are going. And they wonder who or what might ride to their rescue.

These are more than mere gripes, but rather an expression of fears - concerns reflected not only in the many recent polls that show consumer confidence plummeting, personal happiness waning and more folks worrying that the country is headed in the wrong direction, but also in conversations happening all across the land.

Damn Obama for being so far left. I adore his patriotic and hopeful speeches. He is Reagan in that respect --

But there is no way I can vote for him based on his ideological foundation and the risk of the type of justices he'd put on the Supreme Court. You know... like the 4 that very nearly ended our 2nd Amendment protections.

Which conservative justices are you worried he'll be replacing? The oldest justices and the ones most likely to be replaced in the next four years are Stevens and Ginsburg, with the rest being 72 or younger. Stevens and Ginsburg are both considered on the liberal side of the court. Barring something unexpected, the next president won't be shifting the balance of the court.

Yep - nice.To go further - This country faces larger issues than abortion or the 2nd amendment.No one is dumb enough to challenge those, although the DC ruling this past week was MUCH MUCH closer than I expected. I don't care what party you represent - just read the f'n constitution (our country needs a 3rd party with a social conscience to recognize this).HOWEVER, I'd rather a system that favors the American citizen and not the top 1%-5%.Obama, while his voting record is reported as 'liberal' comes off as very 'american' to me. You can't have an "American Dream" while working at Wal-Mart with a second job serving coffee to the current middle class at Starbucks at night. You actually can't even come close with either/or and you won't have the health insurance to back you up. You WILL die young. You WILL have issues that you cannot have money for. I've been outside the health insurance racquet for over a decade. I'm still broke because of it JUST TO LIVE.

To me, the issues are about survival of Americans (and making it easier to be a citizen) - if you don't give a damn about the guy serving you coffee, checking you out at Wal Mart or keeping you safe while you sleep (ala fight club), then what the f do you really care about? Seriously. If you want to defend youself, should things get worse on the 2nd amendment (which I fear either way) - you can still keep what you have quietly with a 'blue law' hanging over your head. NO one will ever question your motives. I've had COPS tell me HOW to "kill" or maim someone (after I was robbed living in an urban center in multiple places) so I can't have 'legal' issues. As far as I'm concerned - even if the 2nd amendment gets challenged and regulated - you still have to do what you have to do to protect yourself and your home. NO law enforcement will interfere with that. Fuck, even though it's a protected right, you can STILL be sued by a criminal in your home right now - and lose everything you own - by many US laws.

Think about it - criminals have it easier than we do right now by law. But you do have to live in crime centers to understand this. I agree with the 2nd amendment, however, it's importance to our nation is maybe 50th on our list of priorities, to be honest. If you know how the law works and how to 'take out' a criminal on your property - then no change in our constitution will impact you, your family or your safety.

The nation's psyche is battered and bruised, the sense of pessimism palpable. Young or old, Republican or Democrat, economically stable or struggling, Americans are questioning where they are and where they are going. And they wonder who or what might ride to their rescue.

These are more than mere gripes, but rather an expression of fears - concerns reflected not only in the many recent polls that show consumer confidence plummeting, personal happiness waning and more folks worrying that the country is headed in the wrong direction, but also in conversations happening all across the land.

Damn Obama for being so far left. I adore his patriotic and hopeful speeches. He is Reagan in that respect --

But there is no way I can vote for him based on his ideological foundation and the risk of the type of justices he'd put on the Supreme Court. You know... like the 4 that very nearly ended our 2nd Amendment protections.

Which conservative justices are you worried he'll be replacing? The oldest justices and the ones most likely to be replaced in the next four years are Stevens and Ginsburg, with the rest being 72 or younger. Stevens and Ginsburg are both considered on the liberal side of the court. Barring something unexpected, the next president won't be shifting the balance of the court.

That much is true. How old is Kennedy? He seems to be the swing at the moment.

They are legal, and there are tons of places to buy them. The main reason I enjoy them (and this is going to sound cheesy) is because when you go out your front door at about 9 pm on the 4th.... you can close your eyes and hear literally thousands of distant thuds, booms, pops, etc..... and for just a moment you can imagine that it must have sounded something like that to people listening to battles a couple miles away from where the Colonials and the Redcoats were clashing a couple centuries ago.

gotta love this, nice summary! - now write send that to the guy who cant find the beauty in them (from the other thread)

also - does anyone else find it hilarious that on the supreme court, "young whippersnapper" is defined as sub-72

That much is true. How old is Kennedy? He seems to be the swing at the moment.

He's 71.

While I prefer a somewhat conservative court, it's not an issue for me this time around. While McCain would presumably (you never know, though, as justices sometimes turn out different than what you think you are getting) guarantee a very conservative court for years to come, I don't think you should assume that Obama would appoint super liberal justices. And, as I noted above, even if he does, it's unlikely to shift the balance.

Logged

Roger: And you should know, I have no genitals.Syndey: That's alright. I have both.

That much is true. How old is Kennedy? He seems to be the swing at the moment.

He's 71.

While I prefer a somewhat conservative court, it's not an issue for me this time around. While McCain would presumably (you never know, though, as justices sometimes turn out different than what you think you are getting) guarantee a very conservative court for years to come, I don't think you should assume that Obama would appoint super liberal justices. And, as I noted above, even if he does, it's unlikely to shift the balance.

I am still amazed that people think McCain is somehow automatically going to nominate these ultra conservative judges, when he himself is not all that conservative. Then to question if an ultra liberal person like Obama is going to nominate liberal judges.... boggles the mind.

That much is true. How old is Kennedy? He seems to be the swing at the moment.

He's 71.

While I prefer a somewhat conservative court, it's not an issue for me this time around. While McCain would presumably (you never know, though, as justices sometimes turn out different than what you think you are getting) guarantee a very conservative court for years to come, I don't think you should assume that Obama would appoint super liberal justices. And, as I noted above, even if he does, it's unlikely to shift the balance.

I am still amazed that people think McCain is somehow automatically going to nominate these ultra conservative judges, when he himself is not all that conservative. Then to question if an ultra liberal person like Obama is going to nominate liberal judges.... boggles the mind.

Agreed. But remember that though McCain is certainly NOT conservative by any stretch of the imagination -- the Obama campaign has made it a talking point to try to paint McCain as Bush's 3rd term. It's good campaigning, but it's nonsense.

Agreed. But remember that though McCain is certainly NOT conservative by any stretch of the imagination -- the Obama campaign has made it a talking point to try to paint McCain as Bush's 3rd term. It's good campaigning, but it's nonsense.

Except that McCain has taken pains to reinvent himself as the banner carrier for Bush's third term. He's recently hired Bush aides to run the campaign, and reversed an enormous number of policy positions to bring himself in line with the conservative base. I can't even think of any original policies the guy has proposed - they're all just more of the same with a few token exceptions. Feel free to enlighten me as to any substantive differences.

Agreed. But remember that though McCain is certainly NOT conservative by any stretch of the imagination -- the Obama campaign has made it a talking point to try to paint McCain as Bush's 3rd term. It's good campaigning, but it's nonsense.

Except that McCain has taken pains to reinvent himself as the banner carrier for Bush's third term. He's recently hired Bush aides to run the campaign, and reversed an enormous number of policy positions to bring himself in line with the conservative base. I can't even think of any original policies the guy has proposed - they're all just more of the same with a few token exceptions. Feel free to enlighten me as to any substantive differences.

Its not possible to enlighten you on anything, so I am not going to bother trying anymore.

Ah, yes, the only refuge of brettmcd when confronted with a challenge he can't meet - cowardice!

And what has become your refuge - the personal attack.

Do you really expect an answer to your question when you actually don't think McCain has had a single original policy? The only way you could truthfully say that is if you are such a blind partisan that you've completely lost all sight for anything else, or you just seriously lack in education. I don't think it's the latter. Until you mature past the former, there is little point in arguing.

Do you really expect an answer to your question when you actually don't think McCain has had a single original policy?

Yes, cheeba, I do. I find it telling that the three of you can't muster something up. Given your typical modus operandi, if there were something to crow about, you'd be crowing. I'm more than willing to have a principled discussion with principled people; you haven't managed to qualify for that descriptor in your short time here, and it's not looking like you'll be making an effort in the future.

In total seriousness, having read a tremendous amount about McCain's campaign, I am very interested in understanding where he purportedly differs from the Bush/Cheney policies, and of those ideas, which are original to him. He calls the war "mismanaged", but intends to keep our troops in Iraq indefinitely. He wants to extend the Bush tax cuts. He's pro-life across the board. He's pro-gun across the board. He's lauded by Grover Norquist, who as recently as a couple of years ago, despised him. He and the President share the same unpopular-amongst-the-base immigration policy. As far as I'm aware, there's only two areas where he demonstrably differs from Bush: stem-cell research, where he's mildly more permissive than Bush, and his greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program, which is, as far as I can tell, a shadow of other people's ideas.

Ah, yes, the only refuge of brettmcd when confronted with a challenge he can't meet - cowardice!

And what has become your refuge - the personal attack.

Do you really expect an answer to your question when you actually don't think McCain has had a single original policy? The only way you could truthfully say that is if you are such a blind partisan that you've completely lost all sight for anything else, or you just seriously lack in education. I don't think it's the latter. Until you mature past the former, there is little point in arguing.

Exactly, and the funny thing is that I am about as likely to vote for McCain as Brendan is, but he just naturally assumes that I am a huge fan of McCain. Im not going to defend McCain on anything, as there is very little to defend him on. Just wish it was possible to have a reasoned discussion with him on an issue, but it just isnt going to happen as he has shown over and over he has no interest in discussing things like an adult with me.

Exactly, and the funny thing is that I am about as likely to vote for McCain as Brendan is, but he just naturally assumes that I am a huge fan of McCain.

brettmcd, I'll point out that you're the one who responded to my completely reasonable request, in which I linked to a blog entry detailing McCain's policy reversals. Yes, I know you're going to vote for Bob Barr (assuming he makes it on the ballot in whatever state you're in). Ultimately, you're the one who refused to engage in discussion here, not me; I'm happy to actually talk issues.

But remember that though McCain is certainly NOT conservative by any stretch of the imagination -- the Obama campaign has made it a talking point to try to paint McCain as Bush's 3rd term. It's good campaigning, but it's nonsense.

Quote from: brettmcd

Its not possible to enlighten [Brendan] on anything, so I am not going to bother trying anymore.

Quote from: cheeba

Do you really expect an answer to your question when you actually don't think McCain has had a single original policy? The only way you could truthfully say that is if you are such a blind partisan that you've completely lost all sight for anything else, or you just seriously lack in education.

It seems to me that this little debate could be settled awfully quickly if you guys simply started listing all the major policy positions where John McCain differs from George W. Bush. I wonder why you haven't.

Brendan linked to a long list of McCain's policy flip-flops to bring his campaign into lockstep with Bush's position on education, immigration, Iraq, abortion, supreme court judges, immigration, social security, tax breaks for the wealthy, wire-tapping, oil drilling, trade, health care, the Middle East, special interest groups, global warming, same-sex marriage, and MediCare. So far he's gotten a lot of condescension and personal attacks in response, but not one shred of evidence to try and disprove his case.

I'm not even sure why you'd *want* to disprove him. Isn't it the official position of the Republican party that everything has gone so well these last eight years, we need to stay the course?

I'm not even sure why you'd *want* to disprove him. Isn't it the official position of the Republican party that everything has gone so well these last eight years, we need to stay the course?

Well, yes - there was a good WaPo article yesterday on how conservative activists intend to make McCain's life miserable if he wants to modify the party platform substantially. Personally, I don't see why they're so concerned; he's shown that his positions are malleable, so he'll probably just triangulate to attempt to placate the social conservatives and anti-immigration crowd, and he'll water down his perspective on a cap-and-trade system so that it can be described as something like "a free market solution to encourage voluntary reductions of greenhouse gas emissions".

They do have a branding problem with Bush around, so they'll need to spend some effort removing his fingerprints from the previous one:

Quote

The current GOP platform is a 100-page document, and all but nine pages mention Bush's name. Virtually the entire platform will have to be rewritten to lessen the imprint of the president, who has the highest disapproval rating of any White House occupant since Richard M. Nixon.

Yes, cheeba, I do. I find it telling that the three of you can't muster something up.

You. Don't. Get. It.

It matters not what I or anyone else musters. You have your liberal blog links, your blind devotion to the left, and a total lack of willingness to fairly view or judge the other side. You want to sit in a corner and proclaim, "McCain hasn't had an original thought and you can't show me otherwise! nyah nyah!" then you can go right ahead and do that. If you are truly interested in McCain's policies, look them up. Two seconds on google should provide you with a start.

Quote

I'm more than willing to have a principled discussion with principled people; you haven't managed to qualify for that descriptor in your short time here, and it's not looking like you'll be making an effort in the future.

Perhaps you should read this again? You've no basis on which to say that I lack principle and it's unfortunate that you have entered back into your old ways of personally insulting those who disagree with you.

It seems to me that this little debate could be settled awfully quickly if you guys simply started listing all the major policy positions where John McCain differs from George W. Bush. I wonder why you haven't.

Because you are completely and totally wrong. "This little debate" would not be settled if we started listing policy differences. If Brendan or you truly wanted to look at policy differences rather than try to set yourselves up for more arguing points, you would jump on google and see for yourselves.

[babble babble babble] If you are truly interested in McCain's policies, look them up. Two seconds on google should provide you with a start. [whine whine whine]

Yeah, cheeba, the point is that I have looked up McCain's policies, while you obviously haven't, which is why I see no difference on any of the issues that matter (economy, war, health care, etc) between McCain and Bush. Of the two of us, I'm the one who actually knows something about the policies both candidates, while you're the one who can't handle a nuanced and adult discussion, and you trail me around from thread-to-thread like the world's least adorable puppy. So, which one of us is the "blind partisan"?

“The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.”

It's not clear on what timeline we'd see these "savings" redirected (because how long, exactly, until we "win"?), and it's not clear how much we'll save with forces permanently stationed in Iraq. No numbers from his team yet.

Yeah, cheeba, the point is that I have looked up McCain's policies, while you obviously haven't, which is why I see no difference on any of the issues that matter (economy, war, health care, etc) between McCain and Bush.

I am pretty sure no one who reads this forum is surprised that you cannot see a difference.

Quote

Of the two of us, I'm the one who actually knows something about the policies both candidates, while you're the one who can't handle a nuanced and adult discussion

Calling people cowards and saying they lack principle is a nuanced and adult discussion?

Hey, I understand why you're running away from a discussion of this - it's because there aren't any consequential differences between their policies beyond the near-trivialities I've already mentioned. Congressional Quarterly, a non-partisan source, has McCain voting with Bush 95% of the time in 2007 and 100% of the time thus far in 2008 (for the votes he's actually showed up for - both he and Obama have missed a large number of them while campaigning). You're running away because people are afraid that McCain is more of the same, a fear bourne out by his current platform.

It's a shame, because I once met McCain in the hallway outside my office a few years ago - he was genial and authentic, and I can see why he's popular with the press at his barbeques. At the time, he really did have some ideas that, while not exactly revolutionary, weren't just rubber stamps of the typical right wing agenda. Things like supporting the estate tax, opposing the Bush tax cuts, and supporting campaign finance reform. It's tragic that he's had to subvert his own legislation to be acceptable as the republican presidential candidate.

That much is true. How old is Kennedy? He seems to be the swing at the moment.

He's 71.

While I prefer a somewhat conservative court, it's not an issue for me this time around. While McCain would presumably (you never know, though, as justices sometimes turn out different than what you think you are getting) guarantee a very conservative court for years to come, I don't think you should assume that Obama would appoint super liberal justices. And, as I noted above, even if he does, it's unlikely to shift the balance.

I am still amazed that people think McCain is somehow automatically going to nominate these ultra conservative judges, when he himself is not all that conservative. Then to question if an ultra liberal person like Obama is going to nominate liberal judges.... boggles the mind.

Agreed. But remember that though McCain is certainly NOT conservative by any stretch of the imagination -- the Obama campaign has made it a talking point to try to paint McCain as Bush's 3rd term. It's good campaigning, but it's nonsense.

The thing about McCain as Bush 3 is this, IMHO:

There are a couple of issues that McCain is very passionate about, and on these issues he generally goes his own ways, whether they dovetail with the current Republican meme or not. On others, he is disinterested, and will go along with whatever the meme is.

I believe that the Supreme Court is one item that he doesn't really give a rat's ass about, and will go with whatever the Republican meme is. As such, on this item, I would characterize him as Bush 3.

It seems to me that this little debate could be settled awfully quickly if you guys simply started listing all the major policy positions where John McCain differs from George W. Bush. I wonder why you haven't.

Because you are completely and totally wrong.

Prove it.

msduncan accused the Obama campaign of "misrepresenting" John McCain's platform as being nothing but Bush's third term. Brendan responded by posting a link to a long list of policy positions which McCain has flip-flopped on, each cross-referenced with their source, and each bringing him into lock-step with Bush. Since then, you and brettmcd have complained, attacked Brendan, and stated again and again that he's obviously wrong...but 24-hours later, you still haven't offered even one bit of dissenting evidence.

This leaves you with three options:

1) Prove it, which I don't think you can,

2) Apologize and admit you're way, way out of line, or

3) Brag some more about how two seconds in Google would, like, totally prove you right, wait for a good opportunity to quietly duck out of the thread, and pretend that making bold and confident assertions is somehow a good substitute for simple facts.

I don't think you understood my post. I said that you were wrong in your assertion that this little debate would be settled quickly. If you want proof, look up any of Brendan's posts.

I really don't understand where you guys learned how to argue, discuss, or debate topics. You are starting from a point of, "nyah nyah! you can't prove to me McCain has differences from Bush! Go on! Prove it! I dare you!"

This is not how one starts a civilized discussion. There is no incentive for me to prove anything to you and you've shown that you will resort to personal insults when things don't go your way. You want to believe that McCain is no different from Bush? Knock yourself out. Why the hell would I care?